1. Review of where we stand with test creation,
including potential discussion of some of these issues

JT: Takes group through the
email...
... 1. the conforming entities are authoring tools, which may
be extensive and which may consist of compiled code, making
testing whole-tool statements (e.g. that all controls implement
accessibility APIs) very difficult, especially for
outsiders.
... the ATAG2 tests may require the type of access that only a
developer might have
... Has implications in terms of who could do the
test...different from WCAG in which anyone can do it

GP: More a question of
thoroughness....
... An outsider could run a few tests .... and then perhaps
make an assumption

JT: Brings up a very good
point....parts A nad B are different

GP: Implies that source code
might have to be turned over

JR, GP: Discuss

JR: Maybe better to say that
developers may have an efficiency advantage
... But I won't say it can only be done by developers

JS: What's point?

JR: Huge number of tests to
perform...eg every component in whole UI

JS: So maybe best to say that

JT: OK
... What we want to migiate is false expectations about hard
this will be

GP: To answer "what do we gain?"
On flip side there may be a casual tester who makes a false
claim

2. The authoring tool may run on any number of
platforms.- the ATAG2 tests will not specify precisely how to
make an application accessible on each particular platform.
Instead, the tests will specify that the evaluator must have a
"Platform Accessibility Service Test Procedure" ready before
they start (@@@and that the test procedure should be
described).

GP: I don't think we would be
prepared to describe our test procedure

JT: Would it be useful to provide
a sample description?

JR: I think so
... I can do that

3. in many places, ATAG 2.0 refers to WCAG 2.0
as the recommendation that authoring tools and authors should
be seeking to meet in the produced content (and with the
authoring interface). However, WCAG 2.0 itself points to its
WCAG 2.0 for implementation guidance with respect to particular
formats, but with the important proviso that techniques are
non-normative. Furthermore, not all...

UNKNOWN_SPEAKER: formats have
WCAG 2.0 Techniques yet:- the ATAG2 tests will not specify
precisely how to meet WCAG 2.0. Instead, the tests will specify
that the evaluator must have a " Web Content Accessibility Test
Procedure" ready before they start (@@@and that the test
procedure should be described).

JR: I could provide a short
sample description.

4. in many cases, for clarity, the ATAG 2.0 SCs
are written in uncompromising language, but this could see even
well-implemented products fail for bugs or pockets of little
used functionality that have not yet been updated for
accessibility.

GP: Change for bugs to due to
bugs

JR: Idea in law of
reasonableness

JS: I know that won't fly for
W3C

JT: Maybe some way of
benchmarking what is the majority...just thinking alout

aloud

JS: I don't think these help us
at the start

GP: I think industry
participation is contingent on not facing liability which would
come from expectation of perfection

JS: How does it relatatre to
testing?

GP: If perfection is required, we
wouldn't be able to be involved

JS: OK but this really hasn't
happened with WCAG

GP: In the case of website
errors, when they are pointed out they are quickly and easily
fixed

JS: In CR, we are the ones
testing tools

GP: Makes sense if tests are
written such that any tool could be programmed to pass... my
concern is just about bugs